Ranked choice voting undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by allowing a single voter’s ballot to be counted multiple times in different rounds of tallying. This convoluted system can dilute the impact of each individual vote, leading to outcomes that may not truly reflect the will of the majority. In a straightforward election, the candidate with the most votes wins, but ranked choice voting introduces layers of complexity that can distort this simple, democratic process, potentially leading to less representative results.

Ranked choice voting works by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to the voters’ next choices. This process continues until one candidate has a majority. While this system is touted as a way to ensure broader support for the winning candidate, it often confuses voters, increases ballot errors, and can result in the election of a candidate who was not the top choice of a majority of voters in the initial round.

Ranked choice voting is a liberal tool designed to hijack elections, often supported by RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who know they can retain power by courting liberal voters under this system. By manipulating the voting process, ranked choice voting allows these candidates to win through backdoor deals and complex vote redistribution schemes rather than straightforward, majority support. This system is a direct threat to fair elections, and its implementation would erode trust in Idaho’s electoral process by enabling candidates who do not truly represent conservative values to take office.

Alaska (2020):

• Lisa Murkowski’s Controversial Victory: In 2020, Alaska adopted ranked choice voting, leading to a highly contentious outcome in the 2022 U.S. Senate race. Incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary to a more conservative challenger, but due to the ranked choice system, she was able to win in the general election by appealing to voters who ranked her as their second or third choice. This result left many conservative voters feeling disenfranchised and frustrated, as the candidate who initially received the majority of Republican votes was ultimately defeated by a candidate who failed to secure broad first-choice support. Critics argue that this outcome shows how RCV can allow candidates to bypass the will of their party’s base and win through strategic vote redistribution.
• Response to the Backlash: Alaska is attempting to pass an initiative to overturn ranked choice voting in future elections. This move reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the system and a growing demand to return to a more straightforward and transparent voting process that ensures the will of the voters is accurately represented.

Maine (2018):

• Governor’s Race Confusion: Maine has also faced issues with ranked choice voting, particularly in the 2018 U.S. House race for the 2nd Congressional District. Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin initially received more first-choice votes than his Democratic opponent, Jared Golden. However, after the ranked choice votes were redistributed, Golden emerged as the winner, despite Poliquin having led in the initial round. This outcome sparked lawsuits and widespread confusion, with many voters feeling that the process had unfairly altered the election result. The controversy highlighted the potential for RCV to overturn the outcome of elections in ways that can seem arbitrary or unjust.

New York City (2021):

• Chaotic Mayoral Primary: In the 2021 New York City mayoral primary, ranked choice voting led to significant confusion and delays in declaring a winner. The process of counting and redistributing votes took weeks, with multiple rounds of vote tallying, which left voters and candidates alike in a state of uncertainty. Additionally, a major counting error temporarily skewed the results, further eroding public confidence in the system. The complexity of ranked choice voting, combined with the extended time needed to determine a winner, underscored the risks of adopting this system in large, complex elections.

Key Takeaways:

• Undermining Majority Rule: In several cases, ranked choice voting has resulted in candidates winning without securing the majority of first-choice votes, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the outcomes.
• Voter Confusion: RCV often leads to confusion among voters, who may struggle to understand the system or make errors in ranking candidates, potentially invalidating their votes.
• Extended Election Results: The process of counting ranked choice votes can take much longer than traditional elections, leading to delays and uncertainty in declaring winners.
• Manipulation of Outcomes: RCV allows for strategic voting and manipulation, where candidates who might not have broad support can win through the redistribution of lower-preference votes, as seen in Alaska and Maine.